Forestry officials said they're reviewing the incident and that they have no other patrols planned at Taos Ski Valley or any other ski resort. They said patrol had nothing to do with meeting "ticket quotas."

And if you believe that's true, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Benevolent Misanthrope:naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

You think that's nutz?

Where I live, about 40 miles away from me is a huge lake which has a hydroelectric dam. It's controlled by a water "authority" as they call themselves and they have their own police force, who patrol the lake looking for evil-dooers, like people getting drunk while boating,etc.

Well, few months ago I'm out at the lake and I start hearing what I swear is fully automatic gunfire, I'm really trying to figure out what the hell is going on, cause it's not just one gun, it sounds like two-three full auto machine guns firing. So I call the Sheriff's office to report it, the dispatcher says "oh, yeah, we know about it, it's the river authority, they're testing their new machine guns, they told us they'd be doing it."

Wait, I thought that the feds have been steadily slashing Forest Service for years. Many trails, parks, service roads, and FS offices have been closed over the last couple decades. How and why the hell do they have the budget for serious combat gear?

Um; saturation patrols don't cost tax payer money. Saturation patrols are usually paid for by grants; with the requirement that they be done x number of times a year. The objective is to write as many tickets as humanly possible.

This. When the police are stoping and searching black, brown and poor people who aren't doing anything wrong it is proactive policing and it is a good thing. When the police are stopping and ticketing rich people, who more than likely supported stop and frisk, who are breaking the law then it is unjust.

iheartscotch:Um; saturation patrols don't cost tax payer money. Saturation patrols are usually paid for by grants; with the requirement that they be done x number of times a year. The objective is to write as many tickets as humanly possible.

Where do you think the grant money comes from? Corporate donations or something?

buzzcut73:iheartscotch: Um; saturation patrols don't cost tax payer money. Saturation patrols are usually paid for by grants; with the requirement that they be done x number of times a year. The objective is to write as many tickets as humanly possible.

Where do you think the grant money comes from? Corporate donations or something?

I'm glad you asked! The grant money often comes from various sources; but, most of the time, they come from the various government entities. Some of that money does come from federal taxes; but, most comes from investments and other such sources.

As an example; the DEA sponsors a special marijuana check point on the Kansas / Colorado border; they set it up something like three times a year. But, any special interest group can set up a grant.

I generally completely dislike Repuglicans, but I make an exception for former Governor Johnson. He was a good governor, an old-school Republican in that he actually focused on smaller government and getting rid of waste and corruption. The whole Big I reconstruction project in Albuquerque took place under his watch, and it came in on time and on (or possibly under) budget. I'm sad I never voted for him, though.

I did vote for Richardson, and look how *that* turned out. His two legacies are the Rail Runner (light rail = good) and corruption on a scale not seen since the Kingfisher in Louisiana....(epic bad).

Ahh. Government grants don't come from their revenues. Only on Fark would a moron write that with a straight face.

If you're patrolling an area that requires your tactical gear, you should be looking for more serious crimes than cracked windows. If you are in a place where cracked windows are serious business, you don't need tactical gear. And if you have the time to run a saturation patrol, the issues requiring your presence seem dubious at best.

NMTurtlelady:I generally completely dislike Repuglicans, but I make an exception for former Governor Johnson. He was a good governor, an old-school Republican in that he actually focused on smaller government and getting rid of waste and corruption. The whole Big I reconstruction project in Albuquerque took place under his watch, and it came in on time and on (or possibly under) budget. I'm sad I never voted for him, though.

I did vote for Richardson, and look how *that* turned out. His two legacies are the Rail Runner (light rail = good) and corruption on a scale not seen since the Kingfisher in Louisiana....(epic bad).

It's the same in Oregon, 4 decades of left wing corrupt crap. It's a crony corral, woohoo money party. Thanks taxpayers. Not a "smidgin" of restraint or afterthought. Blank checks for everyone on Central Committee. It's for the people.

"Saturation patrols" and other inflexible applications of bad laws are the best ways to get bad laws thrown out. Most people assume that because they've always been privileged that bad laws won't be applied to them, or at least very rarely will, in exchange for willfully ignoring the oppression of the brown, the poor, or whomever's scapegoated now.

The problem is, we've gone so far down the rabbit hole that the only options we can vote for in most places are Judge Dredd style THE LAW IS THE LAW, YOU WILL OBEY sheriffs and politicians, creating more bad laws and policies, no matter what side of the political spectrum they hail from. I don't like the idea of revolution, but holy fark, between the tightening surveillance state and the militarization of police agencies, we seem to be going backward from all of the ideals we beat our chests about.

BSABSVR:Ahh. Government grants don't come from their revenues. Only on Fark would a moron write that with a straight face.

If you're patrolling an area that requires your tactical gear, you should be looking for more serious crimes than cracked windows. If you are in a place where cracked windows are serious business, you don't need tactical gear. And if you have the time to run a saturation patrol, the issues requiring your presence seem dubious at best.

Why would they need to take grants out of revenue; when they've got perfectly good slush funds?

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

I've see articles on Fark recently about how Mexican cartels are using national parks and forests for growing weed, especially parks and forests near the border. So I imagine they are militarizing due to that, and due to the fact that they patrol the areas on a regular basis instead of other law enforcement agencies that would be based hours away.

The One True TheDavid:"I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

fusillade762:Spare Me: Police think they are paramilitary in some kind of domestic war. Over the last couple of decades they have been trained that way. Particularly the last 5-6 years.

Read this if you want to be pissed off

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 321x500]

I find the title amusing and asinine. Any cop that thinks he or she would last 1 effing minute in the sandbox knee-deep in the shiat better just stick to patrolling brown-ish folks in the Bronx, where they have the upper hand. Smartass yahoos get sent home on a 130 with a honor detail and a sad letter to their folks.

KidneyStone:Hobodeluxe: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

looking for weed in rich kid's pockets.

I know a retired Park Ranger and he's one of the coolest people I know. When he saw people smoking weed or drinking in a park he'd cough or sneeze or somehow make himself seen and give them a chance to put things away before he came over and said "Did y'all know weed and booze aren't allowed here?" Unless, of course, they ignored his "cough" warning or were assholes to him when he went up to them.

I've accidentally pissed off a few Park Rangers in my day and found them to be very non-confrontational and forgiving as long as you apologize to them and treat them well.

Regarding saturation patrols, however. Florida's Broward County Sheriff Office can kiss my unwashed ass. They go in an area and violate rights knowing a lot of the charges won't stick but it's a pain in the ass to deal with a BS citation and thye know it.

strangeluck:Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

You think that's nutz?

Where I live, about 40 miles away from me is a huge lake which has a hydroelectric dam. It's controlled by a water "authority" as they call themselves and they have their own police force, who patrol the lake looking for evil-dooers, like people getting drunk while boating,etc.

Well, few months ago I'm out at the lake and I start hearing what I swear is fully automatic gunfire, I'm really trying to figure out what the hell is going on, cause it's not just one gun, it sounds like two-three full auto machine guns firing. So I call the Sheriff's office to report it, the dispatcher says "oh, yeah, we know about it, it's the river authority, they're testing their new machine guns, they told us they'd be doing it."

Boys and their toys.

Similar experience when visiting relatives in the Texas Hill Country in 2010. Went running and ended up near Buchanan Dam, a medium-sized object holding back a big lake. "Near" was as close as I could get, as there were chain-link fences and tubby guys in uniforms patrolling this ahem strategic objective.

Not having visited the Homeland in some years (ACHTUNG) I engaged one of these puffy whiteys in conversation. Off-limits, cannot get closer, nosiree. What the subtext was, I discerned, was that here was another superfluous citizen, probably a junior college graduate, with no real career potential whatsoever. So man oh man was he glad to hang onto this feeble watchman's job.

The point is that all of these forces are not just going to collect their paychecks and go back to sleep. Give them the armaments, instil a bit of alarm, and they're off and rolling.

What's going to be fun at some point is where one of these Security State doofuses gets trigger-happy and drills another SS operative, whom he mistakes, in his portly befuddled fashion, for a terrrst. Helps if they're replete with melanin.

The other side might just shoot back... because they can. And are authorized to, in the myriad orders and commands to defend the Homeland. Remember the Georgia National Guard bringing out the tanks after 9/11?

Franz Stigler, a Bf-109 ace, once recounted how the Gestapo had threatened his aged mother for listening to foreign broadcasts. "Do you want me to come by and strafe your headquarters?" he asked, more or less rhetorically. End of problem.

Just like they said, when all the foreign adventurism becomes too expensive or impractical, they'll bring the war home. (Yeah, I know our timing was off, but it did kind of get snowballing after Vietnam...)

I said it before and I'll say it again...if everyone obeyed the law, the city/state would go bankrupt. Revenue from citations should NEVER be a part of a government budget. If that sort of revenue is required to keep a city running and gov jobs from disappearing, it can only result in corrupt behavior and massive conflict of interest.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

Because somebody might go into the woods with the idea of running operations to kill fascists. It's true too, we'll kill them in the woods as well as in the streets. But in the woods even a Boy Scout can hide easily enough to smoke your ass

anuran:Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

Plenty of grow operations on Forest Service and BLM land. Law enforcement can be dangerous there

I get that they're armed, in case they run into a couple of guys who went to water the plants and who are in no mood to chat with the forest rangers, but why do they need tactical gear? Couldn't they just call up their DEA or State Trooper buddies, in the case they want to raid the plantation?

Flab:anuran: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

Plenty of grow operations on Forest Service and BLM land. Law enforcement can be dangerous there

I get that they're armed, in case they run into a couple of guys who went to water the plants and who are in no mood to chat with the forest rangers, but why do they need tactical gear? Couldn't they just call up their DEA or State Trooper buddies, in the case they want to raid the plantation?

And have to share credit, and confiscated funds/cars/etc. with another agency? Sir, what you are proposing is madness.

The One True TheDavid:"I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

Sheesh.

You don't know Gray Johnson, man. He was a great, realistic governor. He ran as a republican but was not constant at all in his record. He would go with what made sense. Obviously there was no place for him in politics...

sanriosucks:The One True TheDavid: "I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

Sheesh.

You don't know Gray Johnson, man. He was a great, realistic governor. He ran as a republican but was not constant at all in his record. He would go with what made sense. Obviously there was no place for him in politics...

I listened to an NPR interview with him in 2011 and thought, "Damn, there is Republican I could vote for!" Of course, the establishment preferred the likes of Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Romney, etc.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Let's not forget that they are patrolling a parking lot here. With a SWAT van. Handing out among other things tickets for cracked windshields.

Not likely to find an illegal grow operation in the Taos Ski Hill's parking lot.

OK, I enjoy a good FARK-hates-The-Man thread as much as anyone else, but I feel like everyone's lighting the torches for nothing here.

I read TFA. Four guys from the FSO who would have been sitting around polishing their tac gear hoping for a call to come in were instead tasked to write a bunch of nuisance tickets for a day. On the whole, I'd say this is an improvement. Sure, I hate nuisance ticketing too. But at least they didn't strip regular officers from patrol routes, and instead made four specialists do some actual, non-training work.

So... the Forest Service has tac gear. *shrug* Post-TwinTowers/Afghanistan/Iraq, tell me what law enforcement doesn't? All that perfectly good, slushy grant money goin' 'round? I'm not saying it's right, but this instance is no reason for the Outrage Brigade. So... the Forest Service "saturated" an area with a whole FOUR people, and wrote a bunch of stupid tickets. In my neighborhood, it's done every night by Parking Enforcement. Big deal.

I'm sorry FARK, but AFAICT, a bunch of rich people-- usually aka "The Man"-- are making a big fuss because they want to get some tickets revoked. That's all. No story here... and sure as hell I'm not gonna feel outrage for the poor rich.

brimed03:OK, I enjoy a good FARK-hates-The-Man thread as much as anyone else, but I feel like everyone's lighting the torches for nothing here.

I read TFA. Four guys from the FSO who would have been sitting around polishing their tac gear hoping for a call to come in were instead tasked to write a bunch of nuisance tickets for a day. On the whole, I'd say this is an improvement. Sure, I hate nuisance ticketing too. But at least they didn't strip regular officers from patrol routes, and instead made four specialists do some actual, non-training work.

So... the Forest Service has tac gear. *shrug* Post-TwinTowers/Afghanistan/Iraq, tell me what law enforcement doesn't? All that perfectly good, slushy grant money goin' 'round? I'm not saying it's right, but this instance is no reason for the Outrage Brigade. So... the Forest Service "saturated" an area with a whole FOUR people, and wrote a bunch of stupid tickets. In my neighborhood, it's done every night by Parking Enforcement. Big deal.

I'm sorry FARK, but AFAICT, a bunch of rich people-- usually aka "The Man"-- are making a big fuss because they want to get some tickets revoked. That's all. No story here... and sure as hell I'm not gonna feel outrage for the poor rich.

They came for the rich ski resort folks and I said nothing, because I didn't ski at Taos...

Here's my thoughts on the militarization of cops (though I'd never be dumb enough to do this in real life):

Hell, Chicago's been talking forever about bringing in the National Guard, and last I heard, they're wanting to more or less make a large percentage of the cop cars there into Military Assault Vehicles. Nope, didn't read that in some right or left wing paper. Saw it on the news, with Rahm and McCarthey practically ready to jerk each other off about how happy they were about it.

thisisyourbrainonFark:fusillade762: The act is called a Saturation Patrol, and it was performed recently at Taos Ski Valley by four National Forest Police officers and a drug-sniffing dog.

"Oh look, a brown person. Sit. Good dog."

I'm just going to ask "what is your meaning here, regarding brown persons and sniffing dogs in relation to the article"? It's unclear.

lar_m:brimed03 has a point - I mean just because the Taos parking lot is now Check Point Charlie - sheesh let the man do his hassle as long as it is rich people, and not real people.

I've heard that some of the lift operators at Taos don't ski, so they ride ski-bikes like this, those look like fun!:

Also, there were stories out of Denver a couple years ago about finding fairly large grow operations in obscure portions of National Forest (or other park) land including irrigation and security of the grow modifications. These were right in the foothills west of Denver as I recall.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

But while we're on it, maybe you should look up the definition of hyperbole. Because what I wrote was sort of the exact opposite, in fact. My post suggested that everyone dial back the rhetoric and exaggeration, because the subject of TFA and this thread's rants was a four-person ticketing sweep. In a Taos ski resort. Whoopitty-hoo.

Similar experience when visiting relatives in the Texas Hill Country in 2010. Went running and ended up near Buchanan Dam, a medium-sized object holding back a big lake. "Near" was as close as I could get, as there were chain-link fences and tubbyguys inuniforms patrolling this ahem strategic objective.

I'm still a bit off put. 4 or 6 or whatever. Show up in a SWAT vehicle with a sniff puppy when there has not been a reported issue? If officers are seeing people driving dangerously (their stated excuse in TFA for the parking lot excursion) pull those assholes over (if they have the authority. If they don't they should contact an appropriate authority). What they did was ram their lordship over a parking lot that had no reported problem in it. As a positive enforcement exercise. An enforcement exercise at a point where there was no demonstrated issue and they could only make analogous ties to nebulous "Hey! We saw someone driving cray cray and they must have been those ski bums."

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.

Maybe the person doesn't want to pay the fee's and taxes associated with operating a legal grow. Maybe the person doesn't have the money to buy a farm to grow on. Maybe the person is somehow barred legally from operating a legal grow. There could be many reasons, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't matter if it is legal, there is going to be a black market for it. Look at alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is legal but you will find illegal stills with people willing to defend them tooth and nail, tobacco is legal, but there is a huge black market for cigarettes. Plus weed growing isn't the only illegal thing people go into the forest to do that they will use guns to defend.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.

Maybe the person doesn't want to pay the fee's and taxes associated with operating a legal grow. Maybe the person doesn't have the money to buy a farm to grow on. Maybe the person is somehow barred legally from operating a legal grow. There could be many reasons, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't matter if it is legal, there is going to be a black market for it. Look at alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is legal but you will find illegal stills with people willing to defend them tooth and nail, tobacco is legal, but there is a huge black market for cigarettes. Plus weed growing isn't the only illegal thing people go into the forest to do that they will use ...

hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.

I'm not against legalization. Point is even if you legalize it there still will be a black market, and the people that want to produce drugs for this black market are going to need someplace to produce their product.

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.

I'm not against legalization. Point is even if you legalize it there still will be a black market, and the people that want to produce drugs for this black market are going to need ...

My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?

LavenderWolf:My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?

And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.

And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.

Which they will use to terrorize parking lots and generate ticket money. Hence ex Gov Johnson's statement.

ongbok:LavenderWolf: My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?

And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.

Needing to defend themselves is fine. That doesn't mean having a SWAT team is appropriate. If there's a paramilitary group out there that warrants that kind of reaction, I'm totally cool with the forestry service calling in for backup from a department that does needa SWAT team.

You seem to think the choice is full on militarization or walking around with white flags.

The One True TheDavid:"I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

Sheesh.

Yes. He was also the Libertarian candidate for President in 2012 ... or were you not paying attention?

LavenderWolf:ongbok: LavenderWolf: My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?

And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.

Needing to defend themselves is fine. That doesn't mean having a SWAT team is appropriate. If there's a paramilitary group out there that warrants that kind of reaction, I'm totally cool with the forestry service calling in for backup from a department that does needa SWAT team.

You seem to think the choice is full on militarization or walking around with white flags.

So if if someone is heavily armed and dug in what are they supposed to do? A police SWAT team wouldn't be trained to for a situation like that in the forest.

Wanebo:brimed03: this thread's rants was a four-person ticketing sweep.

I'm still a bit off put. 4 or 6 or whatever.

No, no: tfa says it was 4. Let's not start "whatevering" it into a storm trooper parade. This was four cops. Four. Hardly a police-state exercise. More like: I'm really tired of seeing Bob, Jo, Alice, and Tom sitting around the office. Can we find something for them to do?

Show up in a SWAT vehicle with a sniff puppy when there has not been a reported issue?

Yep. This was overkill. And probably not part of the chief's plan. My guess? And it is a total guess. Like I said, someone got the (good) idea to leave the patrol cops on their routes, and task the bored special-team to do parking lot sweep duty. They showed up in tac gear because, what the hell, it's what they wear when they go out and they hardly ever get to go out so dammit I'm wearing my tac gear. There was a dog? I missed that in tfa but, what the hell, Rover needs some exercise too.

If officers are seeing people driving dangerously (their stated excuse in TFA for the parking lot excursion) pull those assholes over (if they have the authority. If they don't they should contact an appropriate authority).

Agreed. Except reality often doesn't match theory. Maybe they asked the appropriate authority to pull over the joyriders on the road and the appropriate authority said "yeah, sure, we'll get to it." Maybe the appropriate authority doesn't care that the joyriders are causing problems in Forest Service areas, so the Forest Service is doing what they can manage with one hand tied behind their backs. Or maybe not: maybe the FSO has free reign and lots of cooperative appropriate authorities to work with, but there are miles of road and a limited number of cops, so they can't catch enough joyriders red-handed. So they do what they can because the problem has to get solved somehow.

What they did was ram their lordship over a parking lot that had no reported problem in it. As a positive enforcement exercise. An enforcement exercise at a point where there was no demonstrated issue and they could only make analogous ties to nebulous "Hey! We saw someone driving cray cray and they must have been those ski bums."

Or maybe this is what they did. Absolutely, there are lots of cops, lots of jurisdictions, where this is how they operate. Absolutely.

What I am saying is that, from tfa, which is all the "facts" we have to go on, four overdressed FSOs ticketed a bunch of people whose vehicles were out of legal compliance in the parking lot of an upscale ski resort, and those people are crying "foul" even though their vehicles were out of legal compliance. AFAICT, and like I said before, this is people who are not used to being told they have to follow the rules stirring up a tempest in a teapot in an effort to get out of being told to follow the rules. Crimea River.

Fark got out the pitchforks and torches because apparently police hate trumps rich-people hate on the FarkMob scale. And when I pointed that out, I got called... I'm not really sure what. A rich-person hater? A WWII-style collaborator?

*shrug* I have no problem with rich people; hell, I'm even friends with a few. =) (Actually, that's true.) I do have a problem with people who stir up anti-authoritarianism to get out of trouble they put themselves into, especially when they have the financial means to meet that trouble. This isn't a case of some poor guy who's got to decide between paying his ticket and paying his rent. This is the worst form of not taking responsibility for one's actions: doing it for no other reason that "I shouldn't have to." I've seen it, I've dealt with it, and I hate it. If you did it, at least have the balls to own up to it. It's a farking ticket, you don't even need big balls for this. Pea-sized balls will do.

I despise the city I live in and its Parking Authority because they refuse to solve the massive parking problem we have and train their PA people to ticket vehicles for the least arguable shred of a violation. Hell, they even take pictures-- from the most advantageous, muddle-the-proof angle possible-- in case you fight it. The city prefers the ticket revenue to solving problems. I can't stand them,